The Three Obama 'Scandals'

The comparison was that a judge overturned the executive, the comparisons were that judges were independant. Not the specific case.

A process without a shred of public scrutiny can never be said to be independent. It's a mockery of due process and the justice system.

This process has scrutiny, by courts and directly elected congressional officials. If you dislike the level of scrutiny please support candidates who agree to change the laws.

No, it doesn't. The only people that can petition the FISA court are specific government officials. Private citizens can't petition the court, can't appeal decisions (which of course, they will rarely know of), and can't talk about anything that they are made aware of. It is a governmental collaborative, rather than adversarial, means of dispensing legal rulings. It is a farcical example of judicial process that shares no substantive features of a just and fair justice system. It's a glorified rubber-stamp.

Everyone here realizes the FISA court was created to protect us from abuse right? Nixon and Hoover wiretapped everyone and the court was created in part to make sure the executive could not spy on whomever it wanted willy nilly.

The FISA courts rarely fail to grant requests. It's a PR stunt, at best, and by asking for (and getting) blanket, widely scoped scoops of data, Obama's NSA is shown to be no less indiscriminate nor more responsible than Bush's.

I have a really hard time thinking of a system which both keeps proceedings secret and also would satisfy the people who object. A panel of civilian oversight would still have to keep the contents secret and is no more assuredly independent than a panel of judges.

In 2009, the court denied a single application, modified 14, and approved another 1,320. In 2008, the court denied another application, and made “substantive modifications” to two more, but approved more than 2,000. In 2007, the court denied a whopping three applications. It denied a single one in 2006. It denied zero applications in 2005 and 2004, though it denied four in 2003. It approved all applications in 2002 and 2001.

So, since the start of the War on Terror more than 11 years ago, the court has denied just 10 applications, and modified several dozen, while approving more than 15,000. ”It is a kangaroo court with a rubber stamp,” Russell Tice, a former National Security Agency analyst, told The Guardian.

In 2012, the government made 1,789 applications to the court — one was withdrawn by the government and 40 were modified by the court, but “the FISC did not deny any applications in whole or in part,” the report states. In 2011, there were 1,676 applications, of which two were withdrawn and 30 modified, but once again, “The FISC did not deny any applications in whole, or in part.” In 2010, there were 1,511 applications, of which five were withdrawn and 14 modified, but “The FISC did not deny any applications in whole, or in part.”

First.

Many requests were modified meaning they overreached but were brought back into legality.

Second look at the numbers

2012 17002011 16002010 15002009 1300

bush's average 2001-end of term was over 2000 a year.

I like how Salon does not include 2009 where there was an application denied completely.

It is generally an ex parte court, it's proceedings aren't contested. Only the government presents to it.

It follows that only denials get appealed, never grants.

The Court members are selected by the Chief Justice. No surprise, he's selected 10 out of 11 of them from judges appointed by Republicans, including a majority from judges appointed by GWB. The Chief Judge is famous among other judges for being a hanging judge.

It is generally an ex parte court, it's proceedings aren't contested. Only the government presents to it.

It follows that only denials get appealed, never grants.

The Court members are selected by the Chief Justice. No surprise, he's selected 10 out of 11 of them from judges appointed by Republicans, including a majority from judges appointed by GWB. The Chief Judge is famous among other judges for being a hanging judge.

1. It is independent oversight on the executive for the granting of surveillance of foreign operatives. Since many of the targets are not charged who exactly needs to be the other party, it is the government versus the judge, the judge is there to maintain constitutionality. So the lack of opposition parties is not relevant, thats simply how the court works.2. Of course, still irrelevant.3. They are no less independent than any other court, so unless you are claiming our entire three branch system of government is fatally flawed what is the point.

The judge is independent and is there specifically to keep the executive in check, before the FISA court the executive under the guise of national security could wiretap anyone for any reason and did, which is why we made this court in the first place.

It is generally an ex parte court, it's proceedings aren't contested. Only the government presents to it.

It follows that only denials get appealed, never grants.

The Court members are selected by the Chief Justice. No surprise, he's selected 10 out of 11 of them from judges appointed by Republicans, including a majority from judges appointed by GWB. The Chief Judge is famous among other judges for being a hanging judge.

I pointed most of that out to Matisaro. He seems to think those are desirable features, which isn't surprising.

It is generally an ex parte court, it's proceedings aren't contested. Only the government presents to it.

It follows that only denials get appealed, never grants.

The Court members are selected by the Chief Justice. No surprise, he's selected 10 out of 11 of them from judges appointed by Republicans, including a majority from judges appointed by GWB. The Chief Judge is famous among other judges for being a hanging judge.

I pointed most of that out to Matisaro. He seems to think those are desirable features, which isn't surprising.

They are desirable when you accept that secrecy for this is required. If you feel secrecy is not required then that is a different argument which I addressed above.

No, you are asserting that is what has happened but there is no proof of that, phone metadata is not fucking phone conversations.

Massive amounts of that kind of social network data is just as useful, if not more.

Are you telling me people should expect facebook posts to be secret?

It depends what you mean by "expect". Cynically, it's probably a good idea to assume that all telecommunications might be accessed in some fashion by unintended parties. That's a pragmatic position.

That's not, however, a desirable state of affairs. That does t excuse poor behavior. A government shouldn't be able to scoop up random telecommunications information without specific cause for specific people. We are fine with saying the government needs probable cause for accessing private property for individuals. Search my house? Fuck you, get a warrant.

For some reason, if a bad person has ever used a phone or computer, however, it's ok for the government to get everyone's information at any time, for any reason. That's ridiculous.

That's not, however, a desirable state of affairs. That does t excuse poor behavior. A government shouldn't be able to scoop up random telecommunications information without specific cause for specific people. We are fine with saying the government needs probable cause for accessing private property for individuals. Search my house? Fuck you, get a warrant.

For some reason, if a bad person has ever used a phone or computer, however, it's ok for the government to get everyone's information at any time, for any reason. That's ridiculous.

What law makes that illegal, bearing in mind that none of that data has been used to convict anyone?

I actually agree with you a law should be written banning the random gathering of information by the government as it is a waste of resources and I highly doubt facebook posts will stop the next 9/11. Currently however no such law exists.

It is generally an ex parte court, it's proceedings aren't contested. Only the government presents to it.

It follows that only denials get appealed, never grants.

The Court members are selected by the Chief Justice. No surprise, he's selected 10 out of 11 of them from judges appointed by Republicans, including a majority from judges appointed by GWB. The Chief Judge is famous among other judges for being a hanging judge.

I pointed most of that out to Matisaro. He seems to think those are desirable features, which isn't surprising.

They are desirable when you accept that secrecy for this is required. If you feel secrecy is not required then that is a different argument which I addressed above.

You can't defend your assertion that the court provides meaningful oversight, because it structurally cannot ever perform that role. Instead of admitting you are comfortable without oversight, you just contort yourself to fit the flimsy narrative. Just admit you don't care instead of embarrassing yourself like this.

That's not, however, a desirable state of affairs. That does t excuse poor behavior. A government shouldn't be able to scoop up random telecommunications information without specific cause for specific people. We are fine with saying the government needs probable cause for accessing private property for individuals. Search my house? Fuck you, get a warrant.

For some reason, if a bad person has ever used a phone or computer, however, it's ok for the government to get everyone's information at any time, for any reason. That's ridiculous.

What law makes that illegal, bearing in mind that none of that data has been used to convict anyone?

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constiution and its attendant case law.

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Mightyspoon the court can provide meaningful oversight, the fact you disagree does not make me wrong. The judge is there to be a gatekeeper for government surveillance requests. I am asking you again to explain to me a system which would better suit your requirements.

For example, let's say we added a constitutional advocate who argues against the warrants in the court. Given YOU and I can not know the details what is to stop you from claiming that person is "in the tank" for the executive as well.

That's not, however, a desirable state of affairs. That does t excuse poor behavior. A government shouldn't be able to scoop up random telecommunications information without specific cause for specific people. We are fine with saying the government needs probable cause for accessing private property for individuals. Search my house? Fuck you, get a warrant.

For some reason, if a bad person has ever used a phone or computer, however, it's ok for the government to get everyone's information at any time, for any reason. That's ridiculous.

What law makes that illegal, bearing in mind that none of that data has been used to convict anyone?

Quote:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constiution and its attendant case law.

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Maybe you've heard of it.

Hey, a facebook post is no more your papers and effects than an add you posted on a telephone pole. Honestly>?

Mightyspoon the court can provide meaningful oversight, the fact you disagree does not make me wrong. The judge is there to be a gatekeeper for government surveillance requests. I am asking you again to explain to me a system which would better suit your requirements.

Mightyspoon the court can provide meaningful oversight, the fact you disagree does not make me wrong. The judge is there to be a gatekeeper for government surveillance requests. I am asking you again to explain to me a system which would better suit your requirements.

Quote:Also, know that Bush was guilty of wrongdoing because he PURPOSEFULLY BYPASSED THE FUCKING COURT. The one you call a joke, so your accusations my stand changes because it's my guy are fucking stupid.

There is no difference between a rubber-stamp court and no court at all.

Except for the hundreds of requests which were forced to be modified to make them legal.

That's not, however, a desirable state of affairs. That does t excuse poor behavior. A government shouldn't be able to scoop up random telecommunications information without specific cause for specific people. We are fine with saying the government needs probable cause for accessing private property for individuals. Search my house? Fuck you, get a warrant.

For some reason, if a bad person has ever used a phone or computer, however, it's ok for the government to get everyone's information at any time, for any reason. That's ridiculous.

What law makes that illegal, bearing in mind that none of that data has been used to convict anyone?

Quote:

The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constiution and its attendant case law.

Quote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Maybe you've heard of it.

Hey, a facebook post is no more your papers and effects than an add you posted on a telephone pole. Honestly>?

I assumed we both understood we were taking about explicitly private messages, e.g, direct messages, IMs, phone calls, SMS, etc. where the nominal expectation is that people who were not explicit recipients weren't meant to read the messages.

I'm not taking about explicit public wall, or whatever, messages and posts.

Mightyspoon the court can provide meaningful oversight, the fact you disagree does not make me wrong. The judge is there to be a gatekeeper for government surveillance requests. I am asking you again to explain to me a system which would better suit your requirements.

The United States federal court system.

The FISA court is part of that system.

That System is not secret and thus a non starter.

Of course the FISC is secret and thus apart from the regularly constructed federal court system even if it's nominally part of it; you even stipulate it shares no similar features. Don't be dense.

Except for the hundreds of requests which were forced to be modified to make them legal.

Five were denied between 1980 and 2006. Five. Out of twenty-three thousand. There is literally-literally no chance that the United States brought 99.98% acceptable cases over a twenty-six year span. And I am supposed to believe that "hundreds" were modified to such an extent as to be protective of the person with rights being spied upon? I reject this whole-cloth.

The entire idea of an independent overseer defies belief. Unless you are in the bag. Which is your thing. You speak as if progressive and hoist the Jolly Roger when the Democrats' ox is gored. And that's fine. Just own it.

I assumed we both understood we were taking about explicitly private messages, e.g, direct messages, IMs, phone calls, SMS, etc. where the nominal expectation is that people who were not explicit recipients weren't meant to read the messages.

Mightyspoon the court can provide meaningful oversight, the fact you disagree does not make me wrong. The judge is there to be a gatekeeper for government surveillance requests. I am asking you again to explain to me a system which would better suit your requirements.

The United States federal court system.

The FISA court is part of that system.

That System is not secret and thus a non starter.

Of course the FISC is secret and thus apart from the regularly constructed federal court system even if it's nominally part of it; you even stipulate it shares no similar features. Don't be dense.

Don't suggest a public court system when I have clearly stated secrecy is a requirement, dont be dense.

Except for the hundreds of requests which were forced to be modified to make them legal.

Five were denied between 1980 and 2006. Five. Out of twenty-three thousand. There is literally-literally no chance that the United States brought 99.98% acceptable cases over a twenty-six year span. And I am supposed to believe that "hundreds" were modified to such an extent as to be protective of the person with rights being spied upon? I reject this whole-cloth.

The entire idea of an independent overseer defies belief. Unless you are in the bag. Which is your thing. You speak as if progressive and hoist the Jolly Roger when the Democrats' ox is gored. And that's fine. Just own it.

Again, prove the inconsistency in this or other topics or drop it and quit trolling me.

I have a really hard time thinking of a system which both keeps proceedings secret and also would satisfy the people who object. A panel of civilian oversight would still have to keep the contents secret and is no more assuredly independent than a panel of judges.